pbs_node_service_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description declares 'READ-ONLY' which is the primary behavioral trait. No annotations existed, so description carries full burden. It effectively communicates that the tool does not modify state. Could mention what 'current state' encompasses, but output schema likely covers return format. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, very concise. First sentence encapsulates purpose and read-only nature. Second sentence adds usage guidance and prerequisite. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema covers return values, so description doesn't need to detail them. Description mentions prerequisite config, sibling tools, and read-only nature. It is sufficient for a simple status tool, though it could explicitly state that it returns the service's current state (but schema likely handles this).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter-level details beyond what is already in the schema. Each parameter has a description in the schema (node default, service example, proximo_target explanation), so the description does not need to repeat that info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'READ-ONLY: get one systemd service's current state on a PBS node.' The verb 'get' and resource 'service's current state' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools for listing all services (pbs_node_services_list) and changing state (pbs_node_service_control).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use (to get one service's state) and when to use alternatives (pbs_node_services_list to list, pbs_node_service_control to change). Also mentions prerequisite configuration 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config.' Provides clear context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.